Federal Judges Are Increasingly Rebelling Against 'Overly Severe' Penalties for Nonviolent Sex Offenders
People convicted of possessing child pornography receive long sentences, but new data suggest they are rarely arrested for contact offenses after their release.

Two recent reports from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) shed light on the legal treatment of sex offenders and further undermine the prevailing assumption that all members of that broad class pose similar threats to public safety. That assumption, which underlies both harsh punishments and indiscriminate registration requirements, is demonstrably wrong.
In fiscal year 2019, according to a USSC report released this week, the average federal prison sentence for child pornography production offenses was nearly 23 years, reflecting the gravity of such crimes, which entail direct involvement in sexual abuse. By comparison, the USSC reported in June that the average sentence that year for nonproduction child pornography offenses, which involve possessing, receiving, or sharing images, was about eight and a half years.
The fact that sentences for production offenses were more severe makes sense, but that does not mean the sentences for nonproduction offenses were just or reasonable. These crimes do not involve contact with children and may consist of nothing more than looking at pictures, which in the context of online sharing counts as both receiving and possessing child pornography.
The USSC found that the average sentence recommended by federal guidelines for nonproduction offenses rose from 98 months (about eight years) in fiscal year 2005 to 136 months (more than 11 years) in fiscal year 2019. During the same period, the actual sentences imposed by judges "increased more gradually," from 91 months (about seven and a half years) to 103 months (about eight and a half years). The difference between those two trends reflects the extent to which judges are disregarding the guidelines based on their conclusion that the recommended penalties are excessive.
In fiscal year 2019, 59 percent of nonproduction offenders received sentences below the guideline range, compared to less than 16 percent in fiscal year 2005. "There
had been a steady increase in the percentage of sentences imposed below the applicable guideline range in non-production child pornography cases," the USSC notes, "which indicate[s] that courts increasingly believed the sentencing scheme for such offenders was overly severe."
The responsibility for that "overly severe" sentencing scheme lies with Congress, which always seems to err on the side of increased punishment. In 2003, the USSC notes, "Congress directly amended the guidelines to add new sentencing enhancements and created new statutory mandatory minimum penalties." As a result, "the underlying conduct triggering such enhancements and penalties increasingly applied to more offenders."
Judges have no choice but to impose mandatory minimum sentences required by statute. But in the 2005 case United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court ruled on Sixth Amendment grounds that federal sentencing guidelines, previously treated as mandatory, are merely advisory. That decision freed federal judges to impose sentences below the guideline range when they thought justice required it.
Because judges disagree about when that is appropriate, the upshot has been wide variation in the sentences imposed on similarly situated defendants. In fiscal year 2019, for example, "the sentences for 119 similarly situated [child pornography] possession offenders ranged from probation to 228 months," even though "these 119 possession offenders had the same guideline calculation through the application of the same specific offense characteristics and criminal history category." The commission also found wide sentence variation in 52 similar cases involving receipt of child pornography (37 months to 180 months) and in 190 similar cases involving distribution (less than a month to 240 months).
The USSC has been criticizing the current sentencing scheme for years, and it reiterates those points in its June report. It notes that the current guidelines, which are "constrained by statutory mandatory minimum penalties, congressional directives, and direct guideline amendments by Congress," include "a series of enhancements that have not kept pace with technological advancements." Those enhancements "cover conduct that has become so ubiquitous that they now apply in the vast majority of cases." In fiscal year 2019, for example, "over 95 percent of non-production child pornography offenders received enhancements for use of a computer and for the age of the victim."
Thanks largely to congressional intervention, someone who views, possesses, or shares child pornography can be sent to federal prison for two decades, while someone else who does the same thing might receive probation or a sentence of less than a year. That situation is hard to reconcile with anyone's idea of justice.
People who think the problem is that some offenders are getting off too lightly tend to believe that anyone who looks at child pornography is inclined to abuse children, so it is best to lock them up for as long as possible. But the USSC's recidivism data suggest that belief is mistaken.
The commission tracked 1,093 nonproduction child pornography offenders who were released from prison in 2005. Three years later, it found, 3.3 percent had been arrested for a "non-contact sex offense" (which would include possession of child pornography). But just 1.3 percent had been arrested for a "contact sex offense." Even allowing for crimes that were not reported, these finding suggests this category of sex offenders is far less dangerous than people commonly imagine.
Other studies likewise indicate, contrary to popular wisdom, that recidivism is not especially common among sex offenders, even when they have committed predatory crimes. A 2003 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) study tracked 9,691 male sex offenders in 15 states who were released from prison in 1994, all of whom had been convicted of rape or sexual assault. It found that 5.3 percent were arrested for a new sex offense within three years.
Another study published the same year, based on a sample of 146,918 Illinois sex offenders who were originally arrested in 1990, generated similar results. Those arrestees included anyone who was required to register as a sex offender, so their crimes did not necessarily involve contact with a victim. Overall, 4.8 percent were arrested for a new sex offense within three years. The rate rose to 6.5 percent after five years. A 2013 study of New Jersey sex offenders found that less than 5 percent were convicted of a new sex offense during follow-up periods that averaged 6.5 years.
By comparison, a 2018 BJS study found that the recidivism rate for state prisoners who were released in 2005 after serving time for various kinds of crimes—meaning the rate at which they were arrested for new offenses of the same type—was about 40 percent after three years and 49 percent after five years. Among violent offenders, the rates were 24.5 percent and 34 percent, respectively. For property offenders, they were about 45 percent and 55 percent, respectively.
A 2004 analysis looked at 4,724 sex offenders from 10 previous studies, all of whom had committed rape or incest. The five-year recidivism rate was 14 percent, rising to 20 percent after 10 years and 24 percent after 15 years.
The longest follow-up period in the BJS study of state prisoners was nine years, at which point 58 percent had been arrested for a new crime of the same type. The nine-year rate was about 43 percent for violent offenders and 64 percent for property offenders.
"As expected," the authors of the 2004 sex offender study reported, "those who have remained offence free in the community were at reduced risk for subsequent sexual recidivism. Whereas the average 10 year recidivism rate from time of release was 20%, the 10 year recidivism declined to 12% after five years offence-free and to 9% after 10 years offence-free." They also found that "offenders older than age 50 at release reoffend[ed] at half the rate" of younger offenders.
The researchers noted that their results "challenge some commonly held beliefs about sexual recidivism and have implications for policies designed to manage the risk posed by convicted sexual offenders." Such findings are clearly relevant, for example, in assessing the merits of state laws that require sex offenders to register for periods ranging from 10 years to life.
The premise of those publicly accessible databases—which invite ostracism, harassment, and violence while undermining rehabilitation by making it difficult to find housing and employment—is that all of these people pose a continuing threat. The evidence shows that assumption is faulty even when limited to people who have committed predatory crimes. It is especially erroneous when applied to nonviolent sex offenders.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yet also opting for more sever sentences for non violent parading.
https://www.westernjournal.com/obama-appointed-judge-wants-federal-prosecutors-tougher-jan-6-defendants/
Political prisoners? What political prisoners? Stop spreading this Dangerous Misinformation Conspiracy Theory if you know what's good for you.
I remember when I called them "American dissidents" (which they totally are), and White Mike absolutely lost his shit. He had a glorious total meltdown.
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FiG And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it........VISIT HERE
Nonviolent protesters don't break into the Senate. They burn down cities.
I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.CEb simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.
Try now.................. VISIT HERE
What if I told you: Orange Man Bad!?
I got $97450 up to now this year working on the online and I’m a full time student. I’AM profited. It’s really bgf simple to know and I’m in order that cheerful that I got some answers regarding it. Here what I do…… Visit Here
Buttplug rejoices
The battle for equality isn't complete until society recognizes the love between Buttplug and the 9-year-old girl he's got chained to the support post in the basement.
"91 months (about seven and a half years) to 103 months (about eight and a half years)"
Why can't these officials talk normally - "x years and y months"?
They sound like parents talking that way:
"My little Johnny is 274 months old."
"Dude, he's 23."
As a Koch / Reason libertarian, I want billionaire employers to have the largest possible labor force. That's why I support Charles Koch's #EmptyThePrisons agenda — even for prisoners who are almost certainly pedophiles. Why should they spend their prime working years rotting behind bars when they could be providing cost-effective labor for Koch Industries?
#ReleaseCPOffendersToHelpCharlesKoch
That's nothing. This poor bastard got 20 years.
"People convicted of possessing child pornography receive long sentences, but new data suggest they are rarely arrested for contact offenses after their release"
I'm not sure the conclusion to draw from that is what you want it to be. Someone else might cite the same data to show that hitting people with harsh sentences for child pornography deters them from "contact" activity after they've been released.
It also ignores the fact that someone had to make the pornography by having “contact” with children.
If you read the article, possession is a non-contact non-production act. Having an image or video doesn’t involve any harm.
You’re thinking of producing content, which is a different, more immoral category.
It involves posssesing nude images of a child who could not consent.
You think that creating a market for child porn isn't harm? That is absurd. Having and viewing child porn is not any less horrible than creating child porn. Reason is just disgusting for even giving this space.
Because watching a man rob a convenience store on the evening news is no less horrible than robbing the store yourself, right? That's absurd. Reason is just disgusting for giving you horse paste lickers this space.
I didn't even read the byline, but by the lack of critical thinking, I knew this was most likely Sullum writing this drivel, and knew it when I got to that sentence.
1] These assholes drive the market that causes the abuse. It's like arguing that the convict deserves a lesser sentence because he hired the killer instead of pulling the trigger himself. Stupid on its face.
2] Ignores the reality that some 30 year old piece of human waste spends 20 years in prison and comes out age 50... he likely doesn't have the same ability to connect, imparts a greater creep factor, is smarter and less likely to get caught, and almost certainly doesn't have the same hormonal drive that he did 20 years earlier. Yeah, of course it's gonna be down.
This isn't the first piece that Sullum has written complaining about how rough pedos have it.
Point 1 is stupid and false. Producers produce because they’re excited by it, not for the market. The market is flooded and no one pays for that shit, no matter what.
It’s copious, it’s disgusting, and all available for free.
The myth that viewing and possession creates a market may have been true when it was Polaroid photos passed or mailed around, but it’s false now.
With the Internet, no one pays, no one makes money off exploitation, and no one is exploiting for money. It’s downloaded for free.
Point 2 is too stupid to deserve a response.
Sullum thinks Capitol protesters should get the book thrown at them while pedo porn procurers should get a slap on the wrist…anyone check his hard drive recently?
racist white trash Capitol police-assaulters? Is that what you meant to say?
it's obvious the prison/industrial complex is looking to tap the well of "sex offenders" to fill the prison cells unoccupied by drug war offenders.
Consider the 3 kids that stabbed the college girl to death in NYC. The stabber just got 9 years in prison - his accomplices got 18 months each. So people that watch porn at home are getting 9 years in jail.
Thanks for admitting you watch kiddie porn.
Please follow the logic of the article. It was bad that there were legislated minimum mandatory sentences, so judges were allowed to use their discretion and give lesser sentences. And now, it's bad that judges sometimes DO use their discretion, resulting in different sentences in different cases.
When you can't make an honest argument, this is what you do.
"Other studies likewise indicate, contrary to popular wisdom, that recidivism is not especially common among sex offenders, even when they have committed predatory crimes."
Correction: "Other studies likewise indicate, contrary to fearmongering propaganda repeated by the news media and politicians, that recidivism is not especially common among sex offenders, even when they have committed predatory crimes."
That fear mongering occurs in courts by lawyers and judges, too.
People who have been educated and know they’re lying about a largely non- violent group of criminals, who are so conscious of their behavior, that once caught, never repeat it.
Who cares if its common? Children are a vulnerable population, sex offenders are required to register because some of them do re-offend and wiser people than you decided that the protection of innocents takes precedence over the comfort and convenience of convicted criminals.
She has been over weight but last month she started to take these r new supplements and she has lost 40 pounds so far.
Take a look at the site here………. http://www.FitApp1.com
Ironically it seems like the crime of trespassing while protesting the regime now requires being held in solitary without bail indefinitely.
So this is the next step? People are actively advocating for pedophiles?
You sound like a horse paste licker. Still mad Trump isn't president any more?
I didn't know state mandatory minimums were so important - that there wasn't a federal equivalent.
I wasn't familiar with the 2005 Booker case. Amusingly, it made federal sentencing guidelines advisory in affirming a case where the lower courts had imposed a MORE SEVERE penalty than the guidelines proposed.
So basically, some perverts are getting off light because federal judges (who are probably also perverts) are exploiting the absence of statutory guidelines, which are absent because they were insufficiently severe in a previous case.
There's one issue I do take with this otherwise good report, and that is Sollum fails to differentiate recidivism types. In the 2019 report:
When tracking 1,093 nonproduction child pornography offenders released from incarceration or placed on probation in 2015, 27.6 percent were rearrested within three years. (This includes revokation of parole.)
Of the 1,093 offenders, 4.3 percent (47 offenders) were rearrested for a sex offense within three years.
Eighty-eight offenders (8.1% of the 1,093) failed to register during the three-year period.
The most common arrest (179 or 16.4%) were for “Administration of Justice” charges. Administration of justice offenses include contempt of court, failure to appear, obstruction of justice, escape, prison contraband, and probation and parole violations (excluding FTRs).
Of those rearrested for a new sex offense, the median time to arrest (i.e., the point in timr where half of the total number of recidivists were arrested) was 12 months.
Also worth noting: Of those who were were released from incarceration in 2015, 86.1% had little or no prior criminal history and placed in the lowest category, “Criminal History Category I” (CHC I). Less than 2% were category IV or higher.
In reality, most "arrests" are actually supervision violations rather than new crimes in general.
Sollum makes the mistake of not making it clear that some studies don't differentiate between sex crime arrests and non-sex crime arrests.
Also, Sollum cites a MULTI-NATIONAL study. Here in the US, we cast a far broader net and label far more activities as criminal than most other countries, so we cannot use recidivism studies from Europe to determine recidivism in the US.
These are two errors I hope this reporter addresses in future articles.
Nice Blog, keep it up for more information like this. buy wine online
I am making a good salary online from home .I’ve made 97,999 dollar’s so for the last 7 months working online and I’m a full time student .DEc I’m using an 0nline business opportunity. I’m just so happy that I found out abOut it.
For more detail … http://thefreedomjobnetwork.unaux.com/
Nice Blog, keep it up for more information like this.
Superb Very creative Superior work.
great share..
Superb Very creative Superior work.